Back in 2000 I had an argument with one of my brothers who was intending to vote for George W. Bush. He didn’t dispute that Bush had the intellectual curiosity of a retarded monkey. But, he pompously informed me, we don’t elect a President, we elect a gang. And, from his point of view, Bush had assembled an A-Team of grown-ups while Gore was working from the Clinton C-Team.
Don’t worry about my brother. His plate of crow is so high that he will never stop eating it. But his point was largely true…we do elect a gang. Bush’s gang was full of lunatics and criminals, but that doesn’t change the merits of the basic observation.
Yet, while I acknowledge that we elect a gang, we also elect a commander in chief that must ultimately be responsible. So, those are the two things I look at. Is the candidate qualified to be commander in chief and what kind of gang will they bring with them?
From that point of view, Rudy Guiliani passes the first test, but not the second. How do the Democrats stack up?
I’ll start with Hillary. She is one of the most qualified people to ever seek the Presidency and she is highly electable. I reject her because of her gang, not because of her qualifications.
John Edwards has some excellent qualifications to run for the Presidency having run for the Vice-Presidency. I’m not nearly as convinced he has the the experience or temperament to actually be President. I’m open-minded about Edwards. But I don’t really have a good sense of what kind of gang he would bring with him. As that becomes clearer, my impression of him will grow clearer.
Barack Obama definitely does not have the kind of experience I would like to see to either run for President or to be President. But he has something else…something intangible. He has charisma. And he has a good temperament. If he were to actually win the nomination, my biggest question would be about how he would staff his gang. Where would he go to fill out the ranks of his administration?
Bill Richardson has the dream resume in this race. He has all the skills to be President and he holds the Guinness Book of World Records title for shaking the most hands. Seriously. He is a world class campaigner. My problems with Richardson are all related to his gang, which I assume will be staffed by Clintonite retreads like Richard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright.
Joe Biden has a lot of positive attributes. I’ve always kind of liked him. But he has foot-in-mouth-itis and I would never trust him to carry the Democrats’ banner. Not only that, but he is too wedded to traditional bipartisan foreign policies that I see as a massive failure. His gang would be as stale and unimaginative as it gets.
Chris Dodd is an interesting case. I don’t see the kind of personal campaigning skills that can get him over the top. And I assume his gang would be drawn from longtime Washington insiders. But, they would probably be the kind of Washington insiders I have the most sympathy for. The problem here is a lack of excitement. But I think he would be the most instinctively progressive candidate of the bunch. I’d like to see more from Dodd.
Wesley Clark hasn’t formally announced. My basic inclination is to reject any former military man. It’s nothing personal to Clark, but I don’t want generals becoming commander in chief. Eisenhower was a pretty good President, but I can’t think of another example. I think Clark’s gang would be pulled largely from the Clinton camp, and that isn’t very reassuring to me.
I saw Mike Gravel for the first time this morning on CSPAN. He didn’t impress me very much. I don’t think there is much profit in discussing his campaign or Dennis Kucinich’s campaign. They would both bring the most interesting gangs, but it’s hard to see how they are qualified to be President.
And then there is Al Gore. Al Gore is riding high from his Oscar victory. He’s definitely prepared to be President. What kind of gang would he bring? I have no idea. If I did have an idea I’d have a better feel for the man and his candidacy. If he’s really changed then his gang will have changed. I have no confidence in that. But, since it would require him to beat Hillary to become President, we can be sure that his gang would not be Clintonian. Would it be the Clinton C-Team, as it was in 2000? Or would it be a fresh face?
As much as I distrust Gore, I have to give him credit for how he has conducted himself during the Bush era.
Here’s my current list, in order of preference. If I could snap my fingers and make the next President, this is the order I would use.
1) Barack Obama
2) John Edwards
3) Bill Richardson
4) Al Gore
5) Chris Dodd
6) Joe Biden
7) Wesley Clark
8) Hiilary Clinton
9) Mike Gravel
10) Dennis Kucinich
Where do you come down?
Excellent analysis, BooMan.
The problem is that most of the experienced members of a gang have to come from somewhere, and that means generally from the last one or two administrations, from legislative staff, from supporters, from governor’s staff and generally a couple of high profile business appointees.
And you can’t judge based on what they did in a previous administration. Their actions are a mixture of their own initiatives and their boss’s instructions.
Another factor is whether you think the president will lead the gang or the gang will lead the president. It’s fairly clear that the gang in this administration is leading a poorly prepared president around by the nose; it’s the same gang that did the same thing to Reagan.
So I’m not so down on Holbrooke; he and Bill Richardson have outstanding negotiation skills, regardless of what you might think about their policy skills and direction.
And foreign policy is important but should not overwhelm the selection of a good domestic economic gang.
1 Bill Richardson
2 John Edwards
3 Hillary Clinton
4 Chris Dodd
5 Al Gore
6 Dennis Kucinich
7 Joe Biden
8 Wesley Clark
9 Mike Gravel
10 Barack Obama
My rankings are based on each candidate’s public statements as well as knowledge I personally have of them. I have also considered the shrillness of their online supporters when formulating the rankings.
What a joke.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Yes, because ‘What a joke’ is so very shrill.
Heh.
It certainly is. Also somewhat funny for its lack of substance and its utter tendentiousness was your response to Kos and Armstrong. Do you serioiusly believe not reporting on someone’s affiliation for three years really invalidates an entire argument? You and other Obama zealots will go to any length to defend your candidate. And the arrogance is frankly unwelcome on blogs that hope to cultivate intelligent discussion.
Hmmm…
My main point was that it’s ridiculous for Markos and Jerome to make a point about Gibbs now when they had plenty of opportunity to do so before. It looked opportunistic.
Zealots? How about the fact that most Obama supporters aren’t so damn cynical about the political process like yourself. Get over it.
Booman hasn’t told me to go away, so I don’t think it’s in your place to be telling me what is or isn’t welcome on blogs. And intelligent discussion? Evaluating support for a candidate based on the ‘shrillness’ of their supporters is idiotic. You aren’t supporting a candidate because of their supporters. You’re supporting them because of the candidate.
Yes, I am. And your abortive refutations of my argument illustrate everything I have already written about you and your various attempts to invalidate those who do not worship at the mediatized alter of your preferred candidate. I already had my reservations about Obama and his campaign, and the coordinated onslaught I have seen on MyDD and at DailyKos simply confirms my suspicions. No, it is not the first aspect of his campaign I consider when assessing his candidacy, but it does lead me to question the integrity of the foundation of his support.
If you are evaluating the ‘foundation of his support’ based on MyDD and Daily Kos, you are looking at the wrong places. Go to Facebook. Go to Obama’s website, where there are thousands of people already networking independently of the campaign. Look at the 17,000 freezing their asses off in Springfield or the 22,000 standing in the rain in Austin.
His support runs far wider than any candidate out there right now. And for the people of my generation, it is deep support. Everyone doubts the youth will get out the vote for Obama…if that is the strategy of other campaigns as well, they will be sorely disappointed.
I am of your generation, and I and many of my friends find some of Obama’s rhetoric somewhat offensive. Regarding the number of people who appear at his events, I would not assume that translates into supporters. And I would not assume facebook or any other online networking tool is an index of general public sentiment. While I am glad you are ecstatic over something political, I wish you would not go to such lengths to invalidate those of us who have genuine concerns. Perhaps considering what we have to say instead of showering us with epithets such as “cynical” will allow you to see some of the fundamental flaws of Obama.
Obama is attracting many of the same supporters Dean did in 2004 and that did not translate into victory.
And questioning machine politics makes me cynical? No, it makes me a responsible citizen. And please try to use talking points other than those that surface in all of Obama’s speeches when refuting my arguments. THANKS.
I hope you posted this comment when supporters of Obama at DailyKos made the same claim about Edward’s supporters.
I have a hard time believing that you are really THAT down on Obama. I mean, I know you don’t support him. I don’t support Hillary. But I didn’t put her last.
I am. Sorry, but I detest him. I do not write endless diaries about it. I just simply despise him. After what he did to Cegelis in Illinois 06, I cannot see how he claims he supports a “different kind of politics.”
And what would that be?
Endorsing Duckworth in a primary against a grassroots candidate who was a community activist. He engaged in a lot of these primary endorsements in Illinois, and I believe it reflects poorly on him and his judgement. it also reveals that he is more committed to top down organization than grassroots organization.
And the mutual endorsements he and Daley gave one another, even if they tried to separate it by one week. Obama had to spend a whole day in City Hall begging for Daley’s misinformed because too early endorsement. I mean, what a joke. Do any of these people have integrity? Should we not wait until we have an actual debate? Or do we rush headlong behind a candidate just because it feels good? Or in Daley’s case, just because he wants more connections, more money and more power? What a joke.
tell us how you really feel.
ok, ok, i’m just kidding.
i’m with you on holding obama at arm’s length, lgirl. tho perhaps for different reasons, tho the ones you cite are pretty darn good.
i don’t like his pandering to religiosity, and i find the whole “superstar” phenom in the mmm (multi-millionaire media) enough to make him suspect in my book.
plus his general lack of experience makes me look elsewhere.
In 2004 the experience issue hurt Dean to some extent. Dean had much more experience than Obama does.
The experience issue will cause major problems for Obama’s campaign at some point. The attack will not come from Clinton and my guess would be it could come from somone like Richardson, Dodd, or Biden. Obama will be a national player in the future but he does not have enough experience at this point to be the nominee and that will play out in the primaries.
I like your point about temperament, Boo. Obama has a good one, you’re right. I was really impressed by how he handled himself in interviews immediately after his speech to the democratic convention. He had just hit the ball out of the park, and it was obvious to everyone. But somehow, he managed to suppress any trace of arrogance (and not by assuming a transparent sheen of false humility, either). In terms of temperament, he is the exact opposite of our current president, who is, frankly, a smug, mean little pissant.
I witnessed Obama last year during the elections in Illinois, and he was very arrogant. I also think he is a hypocrite, as he is a part of the Chicago machine.
Well I put Edwards as my top choice and after a run in with one of Obama’s supporters on another blog and attending the event in Austin last Friday, I feel even less inclined to support Obama. Al Gore is not on my list because he has said no enough times to satisfy anyone.
NO matter who gets the nomination I will bust my ass to get them elected but I still hope it is and Edwards/Obama ticket.
put biden in 4 and that would be it.
Joe Biden that high up?…
Also in orange.
I’m only going to put in declared candidates. If Gore enters the race, he is my #1, no question.
Speaking of which, I was going to put up my list, only realize that it exactly matches what Booman has if he had not included Gore or Clark. Interesting…great minds think alike? 😛
Sorry, but you are in no way a great mind.
He personally attacked me above. I hope you rate him accordingly.
Gore because I’d like to leave an inhabitable planet to my grandchildren, and because he was right about almost everything before anybody else who’s in the race. Well, except for Lieberman, but I don’t think he was the only one who got that wrong. Hindsight and all that. Edwards because his populist message resonates in my heart. Richardson because he has the best resume in the bunch, with the possible exception of Gore. Clark because I think his integrity is bulletproof, and his resume ain’t too shabby either.
After that I’m pretty fuzzy. I admire Dodd but I doubt he’ll get very far. I’ve always liked Biden but there’s that whole (D-MBNA) thing. Hillary’s credentials are better than most, but I’ve had quite enough of triangulation, thank you very much. Obama has enough charisma for two candidates and maybe some substance to go with it, but I’m really uncomfortable with how fast the corporate media christened him a rock star. I’m not voting for a rock star, I’m voting for a president. And the very fact that the corporate media likes him so much makes him suspect in my eyes. I have mixed feelings about Kucinich. I don’t think he has a chance but I want him in the debates making his case. While the wingnuts are busy dragging the entire debate to the right, Dennis is pretty much out there all alone on the other end of the rope. I want every other candidate to have to explain why there is someone to their left.
That said, I’d take any one of them in a heartbeat over anybody the Repubs would even think about running. I’m not about to sit home, or throw my vote away to some third party candidate, because my guy didn’t get the nomination. That way lies madness.
here’s my take 26 feb 2007:
first I have to eliminate those that, personally, I would find myself unlikely to support in any way beyond anybody but the republican, in order of appearance:
Biden
Clark
Clinton
Gravel
Kucinich
following that, I would rank the remainders thusly, in order of preference for president:
Gore
Edwards
Dodd / Richardson / Obama [tie]
it becomes very difficult at this stage, to make any prognostications, but I have believed for a long time, and continue to believe that the 08 election is the Democrat’s to lose…and they are, frankly, showing that they are quite capable of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
overall, it is, in my opinion, the strongest field of potential candidates that the democrats have ever had…certainly within my memory.
the dream ticket, for me, would be Gore in the lead. barring his refusal to be a candidate, with any of the other 4 as veep…maybe even Clark, although I have a strong prejudice against military candidates…tough call, and one I’m not prepared to make, especially given that I would not want to have him as president. Richardson, in many respects, represents an extremely qualified vp contender, based upon his resume, which is indeed impressive…and at this time would be my pick as veep.
next would be Edwards as lead and any of the remaining 3 as vp.
first choice, Richardson; second Obama, Dodd third.
Dodd and Richardson as leads is not something that gives me much confidence or hope, and Obama as lead, regardless of his charisma, which frankly is all he’s got, I’m not interested in.
at any rate, it’s a long time till it counts and a lot of things are going to happen between now and next fall.
we have indeed been born into interesting times.
march on the pentagon: 3.17.07
Draft Al Gore: 2008
I too have thought about charisma, and I find Obama’s unwillingness to attend the ACFSME forum in Carson City somewhat telling. He will attend planned events where only he is the focus for supporters his more connected supporters are able to draw, but he will not attend a forum where supporters are not guaranteed to clap each time he utters a talking point. That he has to have staged events reminds me of the current President, and this I find very problematic.
at the end of the day, follow the money…I have no idea where his funding base is, and am not in the mood to research it.
he has been positioned as the “youth” candidate, but given the performance of the younger voters in the last 2 elections…aside from some impressive turn outs in liberal enclaves surrounding major universities…I would not want to rely upon that demographic to provide a strong enough. let alone reliable, base to enable him to overcome any perceived shortcomings to the voting public at large. right, wrong or indifferent.
we shall see…so far, I, personally, am not impressed, as you say, with anything beyond his oratorical skills, which are formidable…but not yet backed up by a record of experience and performance…it’s too early for Obama
march on the pentagon: 3.17.07
Draft Al Gore: 2008
i must note how unimpressed i am with his speeches. many claim he is eloquent, but i find his oratorical skills somewhat wanting.
Ha!…I wouldn’t place him at the top of the list in eloquence, but probably tied with Richarson at #3 behind Gore and Edwards, altho Richardson is probably a bit better from what I’ve seen….Obama needs a script, at least that is my impression…the others are very adept extemporaneous speakers….a real advantage IMO.
march on the pentagon: 3.17.07
Draft Al Gore: 2008
Obama is a rising star and will have an impressive run but will not be the nominee. At this point Clinton will likely be the nominee. If she loses I would expect the nominee to be either Edwards or Richardson.
first, let’s clear up the nonsense about “drafting Gore” which has apparently spilled over to here from the orange site– Gore isn’t running, even if he wants to he can’t because of the MONEY issue.
reagan and nixon are exceptions, but not many candidates get a second shot at POTUS after losing the first time.
it’s already been predicted this election cycle we’ll see the final top two dem primary candidates having to raise $500 million each to “effectively” run their campaigns. that ain’t chicken feed. the money people, the ones making the big contributions are not going to give that kind of money to a loser. sorry, it just doesn’t happen.
second, here’s my record since 1998 when I first started seriously prognosticating POTUS elections.
2000: I accurately predicted Gore would lose to Bush, in spite of all the “bloggers” (the term wasn’t in use then) over at Salon in 1998 and 1999 predicting a “landslide” victory for Gore and laughing about “the stupid rich kid governor from Texas”.
I had no clue the democratic powers that be would pick Joe Loserman as Gore’s VP running mate– but it was no surprise they would pick a candidate even more conservative than Gore in order to continue the weak republican-lite strategy which won Clinton two terms but clearly ran it’s course and was a useless strategy for the 2000 race and beyond– yet it appears they are still using this strategy, particularly regarding HRC.
if the housing bubble goes as far south as many predict it will, we could be looking at more than a mere recession. this will obviously have a major impact on the election.
after that I dunno
Sorry to say it but the “gang” will be the same faces whether Clinton, Obama, or Edwards is the nominee. There will not be a lot of difference.
As our UN Ambassador during the CLinton era, Bill Richardson was responsible for the
genocide of Iraqi children by US sanctions. As such, Bill Richardson is a war criminal and deserves to be imprisoned, not voted into office.
Obama had the foresight to vote against the war. That get my vote, though I would have preferred him to show more backbone when addressing AIPAC. But still he did less shameless pandering than Clinton or Edwards (who practically sweared fealty to Israel)
Didn’t see your comment before I posted mine. I appreciate the additional information and thanks for the link.
Bill Richardson also worked for Kissinger Associates which should disqualify him among progressives (in my opinion of course)
Obama was not even in the Senate. He did not vote against the war.
Very creative approach to this essay. I’m definitely on a different page when it comes to your rankings. As far as charisma goes, Jim Jones had quite a bit of that too, and let’s not forget what happened to those unfortunate Kool Aid drinkers. I’m not trying to compare Obama to Jim Jones in any way, aside from the “charisma factor”. I just truly don’t see why so many people are swooning over the guy. Nothing against him, I honestly don’t get where he has the slightest qualifications to serve as POTUS. Yeah, he might look darn good for the cameras, but…where the heck is the substance and experience?
Our global community is in a total state of crisis, and more than anything, we need a leader in the truest sense, with vast experience in both foreign and domestic issues. After listening to an Air America interview with Richardson on Saturday evening, I was incredibly impressed. So much so, that I spent the next several hours researching his history. His resume speaks for itself, and is pretty darn important to me. In fact, I had never seen such a rich background in a presidential candidate. And yup, he too looks pretty damn camera ready. Granted, I’m not done with my research, but….
Richardson’s record reveals not only a diplomatic statesman, but a true leader with global vision. (And yes, I remember the Wen Ho Lee incident, but none of the reporters will share their sourcing of the leak, and until they do, I’d like to take the approach of “innocent unless proven guilty”.)
As far as the gang he’d bring with him? With Richardson, that’s not a concern for me as compared to our current “puppet in chief”. And heck, as far as holding the record for most hand shakes, that seems like a damn good thing in a presidential candidate.
We have a helluva long way to go until November, 2008, and I’m still researching all the candidates. One thing I’ll add is my position on deal breakers, such as a vote for the bankruptcy bill. (cough…Biden….cough)
Silly analysis. Way too early for this. But anyway:
Candidates I could enthusiastically support:
And the others:
6) Hilary Clinton
and none of the others at all.
what it means to be “qualified” to be President of the USA.
Most of the usual suspects are certainly capable of reading their scripts, ending with “God Bless America” and similar nuggets of pablum.
Most of the usual suspects are certainly qualified to continue minding the imperial activities of one sort or another as we slowly slide into the post-lone-superpower post-peak-oil era.
Most of the usual suspects don’t really share my priorities (since they’re getting bankrolled by people who make more money each minute than I make in a lifetime).
I can’t really say I’m voting for anyone, just trying to find someone who I can least emphatically want to vote against.
since before we could speak.
Flying around the world and to other worlds.
Beginning to heal not just the sick but the dead.
Machines that can reason.
And these individuals are the potential heads of state America has to choose for itself in this world it so heavily influences.
Where are our Kings, our Einsteins, our Ghandis, our Roosevelts, our Jeffersons?
“Jesus wept.”
First, on Dodd: I just discovered that he was the sponsor of FMLA way back when, and is now trying to amend it to allow for mandatory paid maternity leave. Currently, the U.S. is one of only five nations not to offer this to mothers of newborns (see my dKos diary for the four other sorry-ass countries on this list). So this makes me strongly tempted to support him, particularly since he’s perfectly electable when the general election season comes around.
But I have to take strong issue with BooMan’s omission of Grant from the discussion of “good presidents who were formerly generals”. In particular, to essentially state that Ike was better? I have to think Grant would have done much more for civil rights than Ike did, were he president in the 1950s. Grant’s legacy was slandered by Yankee-hating Southern “historians”, and you should resist allowing any of their momentum to continue unchecked. US News recently published a ranking (based on various scholarly polls) of the “Ten Worst Presidents”, and their paragraph on Grant differs markedly from those of the other nine:
Sounds almost like they’re sheepish to have to include him, doesn’t it?
In Grant’s final SOTU speech, he called for public schools for all, “irrespective of sex, color, birthplace, or religions”. He argued for complete separation of church and state, calling religious tax exemptions “evil”. And in the wake of the Black Hills gold rush, he said “Thus far the effort to protect the treaty rights of the Indians to that section has been successful”. Can you imagine other presidents of that era giving a rat’s ass?
I actually have to agree with Nathan Newman’s assessment that Grant just might be our greatest president, period. But certainly as former generals go, he’s way way way above Eisenhower!
-Alan
we can always count on you for a contrarian view.
Nathan Newman is a well known progressive–is he a contrarian? Why do you consider Eisenhower to be better than Grant, anyway?
-Alan
Bill Richardson is a male chauvinist pig. — And what’s wrong with Kucinich fer crying out loud?
can you explain this post?